I would understand (and even agree) with much of your post except the "rounded rectangle" argument. In that particular case, there were six (6) criteria which included rounded edges and Samsung's product had ALL six (6).

Yes, but the reason the Dutch court laughed at all of Apple's design-related claims is that each of those six serves a practical utilitarian purpose, exposing the design patent to possible invalidation.

Just a thought, perhaps the real reason for this epic underlying friction between these two companies stems from Apples possible entry into the TV set market? Samsung does really well in that market, I just bought one like 6 months ago, and the last thing they want to see is old Apple unveiling some futuristic TV that makes Samsungs (and every other companies) TV's obsolete. ??? I mean if they do for TV sets what they did for cell phones it would be a bloodbath for Samsung...

What people are saying at least here is that no one should have a patent on the general concept of a minimal tablet. The specific design? Hell yes (and Apple has the specific iPad design patent and rightfully so) a general drawing of a tablet that doesn't look like an iPad and resembles tablets prior to the filing? No.

As far as the more technical software patents go I and apparently s lot of judges feel some of them are too broad and basic for a legal monopoly to be upheld.

Those who feel Samsung should be allowed to continue its copying are misguided yes, but as I see here most of the opposers are against some of the most general of patents.

Opinions on these cases aren't a zero sum game. I don't like Samsungs non Nexus devices. In some iterations the subpar ripping off is so blatant Samsung should be forced to recall. The docks and connector similarity as well.

But rounded rectangles? No.

And I'm not really sure what the multi touch patents are specifically so I can't comment on those but if I'm reading them correctly then they are ridiculously general and in some cases nullified (it seems) by prior art.

(ii) a flat clear surface covering the front of the device that is without any ornamentation,

(iii) a rectangular delineation under the clear surface, equidistant to all edges,

(iv) a thin rim surrounding the front surface,

(v) a backside with rounded corners and edges bent toward to the top, and

(vi) a thin form factor

There are many ways Samsung could have gotten around that, but they chose to instead copy the iPad design. You will note (or, at least you would if you were being intellectually honest) that Apple isn't suing all the other tablet manufacturers. Only Samsung which is a near exact copy - exact enough that their own attorney couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Like someone said could you tell the difference between a Sony and Samsung 50in flat screen at say 30-50 ft?

Even the injunction in Germany never agreed the Tab looked like an iPad. It doesn't.

Side by side? Definatly. One at a time? Probably yes. Im not sure im the standard to use though. Trying to figure out if it's similar enough to cause confusion is the slippery bit in this whole case. I was just pointing out that your statement "But the Tab 10.1 really doesn't look like an iPad though." was called into question by Samsung's own lawyer and the judge too for even asking.

Side by side? Definatly. One at a time? Probably yes. Im not sure im the standard to use though. Trying to figure out if it's similar enough to cause confusion is the slippery bit in this whole case. I was just pointing out that your statement "But the Tab 10.1 really doesn't look like an iPad though." was called into question by Samsung's own lawyer and the judge too for even asking.

Why didn't Apple present the actual iPad design patents if they felt it looked like an iPad.

There are many ways Samsung could have gotten around that, but they chose to instead copy the iPad design. You will note (or, at least you would if you were being intellectually honest) that Apple isn't suing all the other tablet manufacturers. Only Samsung which is a near exact copy - exact enough that their own attorney couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet.

Those six criteria are ridiculous. I see why so far every other court has thrown them out.

And again Germany did not agree the tab looked like an iPad. The design patent Apple presented was not the iPad design patent.

And Apple went after the xoom as well. So another claim of yours falsified.

Why didn't Apple present the actual iPad design patents if they felt it looked like an iPad.

If? Of course they "felt it looked like an ipad" that's the whole reason they sued. I believe they used the words slavishly copied in court. As to what patents they should present to prove their case, I don't know.

Honestly, the Samsung lawyer should be fired. If she really couldn't tell, which I do not doubt as the tablets in the front almost do look identical, why would she not just guess? She had a fifty fifty chance of getting it right, and if she got it wrong, the outcome would have been the same.

BS. Go into Sears where all the top brands are located and sold. Samsung's cheaper models have a thin boxed border surrounding the glass, and a clear bottom plastic molding that extends from the bottom of the screen and is quite distinctive. Sony's lower end flat screens have a much thicker edged boxed border surrounding the glass, and no decorative molding. Sony also uses a darker black then Samsung.

Sharp makes a beautiful flat screen that doesn't come across super well in pictures, but it almost looks like the front of a MacBook or Apple Display. The corners are rounded, the LCD is covered in a reflective glass, and surrounded by a black frame that sits under the glass (the stand is quite distinctive as well). Samsung's higher end flat screens are unmistakable as well with a super thin border that seems to be a polished chrome like metal.

Panasonic in the cheaper to mid range models uses rounded corners and a frame with a con-caved bottom border.

LG tends to look like either Panasonic or Samsung (I am not sure who is knocking off who), but even LG mixes it up a bit with a different shaped clear plastic bottom molding which is often times a different color like red (as opposed to Samsung's clear).

I have a design degree I used to be able to go into a clothing store and look at a pair of pants or shirt without looking at the label and tell you who makes it. Most of the top brands in flat screens are easily distinguishable from one another.

Samsung's Tab though is real hard to tell the difference between it and an iPad from the front view. If I recall, the backs are different. Samsung could do any number of things to distinguish its product. For instance, frame the Tab like its TVs in a clear or color tinted molding. Use a polished or hammered metal frame. Chrome polished aluminum would have been sharp (like its high end TVs). Possibly make the back out of clear plastic like Apple used to do with its monitors. Had it even copied Apple exactly, but used a different color molding, it would be on slightly better footing. Moreover, there is no reason Samsung's Home button needs to be the same size, shape, or location as Apple. It could have even added two home buttons, or eliminated them, or put them on the sides.
There is quite a bit Samsung could do to make just as effective a product without trying to make it look just like an iPad or iPhone.

It, however, is purposefully emulating Apple to either fool people or convince them that its product is just as good or better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neo42

From a distance just about every LCD or Plasma television looks identical AND have the same aspect ratio too. I don't think similar looking fronts (remember, only the front was shown) of different sizes warrants design copy. Then again I am not a patent troll.

It, however, is purposefully emulating Apple to either fool people or convince them that its product is just as good or better.

Exactly. The idea is to create a world in which people think that the iPad is a name for a generic device, not owned by Apple. So that when someone walks into a shop and are sold a Samsung the line will be "hey, I just bought an iPad from Samsung". And when Samsung have this leverage from their manufacturing position they will then try to force Apple out of the business by undercutting them on price. As they easily could because after all they have no investment in research and innovation.

IP needs to be cleaned up, there's no doubt for example no one should be able to patent parts of the human genome but this behaviour of Samsung is positively reptilian and I hope that the world's courts will see it for that.

AppleInsider = Apple-in-cider.It's a joke!

I've used macs since 1985 when I typed up my first research paper. Never used anything else never wanted to.

Exactly. The idea is to create a world in which people think that the iPad is a name for a generic device, not owned by Apple. So that when someone walks into a shop and are sold a Samsung the line will be "hey, I just bought an iPad from Samsung". And when Samsung have this leverage from their manufacturing position they will then try to force Apple out of the business by undercutting them on price. As they easily could because after all they have no investment in research and innovation.

IP needs to be cleaned up, there's no doubt for example no one should be able to patent parts of the human genome but this behaviour of Samsung is positively reptilian and I hope that the world's courts will see it for that.

I actually did have a houseguest from Korea with one of those things. She played with my iPad and the next day she went and bought one first thing in the morning

You can tell them apart immediately if you have used either one. The galaxy is noticeably larger and has that metal band around it like the previous gen of iPhones. The lawyer, as it is usually the case, had probably never even used one, she was there to simply argue her point without looking in to it.

I certainly think Samsung has copied many design elements from apple, past and present, but as they say, it's not what you know, it's what you can prove.

Apple may simply be preparing for the next generation of iPads and these lawsuits could just be warning shots.

Legally, one shouldn't have to study every detail to be able to tell the difference. A layman who has never seen the devices before should be able to tell the difference if Samsung were not blatantly copying.

Why?

That's like saying a Sony TV has to look different from a Panasonic TV. It's what's displayed on the TV. In other words, can you tell the difference from 10 feet when they are turned ON. Or for example, you could say Apple copied Lenovo's ThinkPads by making the MacBook black (of course this is nuts but just let's say for example). But they're different when they are turned ON. This judge is a moron. Trying to get some My Cousin Vinnie fame.

I mean what's the solution, require Samsung to make it in a circle shape?! It's a friggin' tablet. Chances are it'll be a shiny black rectangle. Big surprise.

And as someone else pointed out, if the lawyers weren't idiots they'd have been familiar with the difference in aspect ratios and been able to answer the question, anyway.

"Overpopulation and climate change are serious shit." Gilsch"I was really curious how they had managed such fine granularity of alienation." addabox

That's like saying a Sony TV has to look different from a Panasonic TV. It's what's displayed on the TV. In other words, can you tell the difference from 10 feet when they are turned ON. Or for example, you could say Apple copied Lenovo's ThinkPads by making the MacBook black (of course this is nuts but just let's say for example). But they're different when they are turned ON. This judge is a moron. Trying to get some My Cousin Vinnie fame.

I mean what's the solution, require Samsung to make it in a circle shape?! It's a friggin' tablet. Chances are it'll be a shiny black rectangle. Big surprise.

And as someone else pointed out, if the lawyers weren't idiots they'd have been familiar with the difference in aspect ratios and been able to answer the question, anyway.

It really amazes me how frequently people like you who don't have the least understanding of the issues insist on posting, anyway.

First, there's a little matter of trade dress. Then there's the matter of design patents. Then there's the matter of other patents. Since judges around the world have been blocking Samsung from selling their phone, the people familiar with the law are disagreeing with you.

And, for the thousandth time, it is not simply a matter of a rectangle shape. Apple isn't going after every rectangle shaped tablet - just those that are near exact copies of the iPad. So close, in fact, that a Samsung attorney couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet away.

Try making a can of soda in a cylindrical shape with an indented bottom. No problem - and no one will bother you. Now, make it red with silver lettering in a swirl and the words "Coca Coda" on the side. Watch how fast you get yourself sued.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

All this proves is that the samsung lawyer is an idiot. The aspect ratio is different between the two devices and this should be obvious at 30+ feet to anyone that isn't blind

you are so WRONG!!!!! guess again.
Samsung products are a huge rip-off of Apples designs.
Scamdroid is a direct rip-off of iOS' design. Hemroid is also a ripoff of java.
Oracle will be putting the slap down on crookle soon enough too. Kiss your "free FTW" mantra goodbye. It was never free, since it was stolen.

... And, for the thousandth time, it is not simply a matter of a rectangle shape. ...

This particular assertion is just a talking point that Apple haters, Fandroids and Samsung/Google PR shills (and a few trolls with nothing better to do with their lives) have latched onto. It's one of those deliberate lies that it's hoped if repeated often enough people will start to believe it. A basic propaganda technique.

you are so WRONG!!!!! guess again.
Samsung products are a huge rip-off of Apples designs.
Scamdroid is a direct rip-off of iOS' design. Hemroid is also a ripoff of java.
Oracle will be putting the slap down on crookle soon enough too. Kiss your "free FTW" mantra goodbye. It was never free, since it was stolen.

Pro Tip: when you use different derogatory names for the same product, it gets confusing, as people tend to think you're talking about two different things, particularly when you use them in close proximity.

For what it's worth, I like "Scamdroid", but not nearly as much as I like "Scamsung". You hear how it's inherently better phonetically?

And while "Hemroid" is somewhat witty, I find it to lean more toward the "I'm talking about actual hemorrhoids and don't know how to spell the word" camp.

I'd say use "Androne" for Android, but that lends itself much better to fanboys of the OS than the OS itself.

Try out "Anclone" or "iPhone OS 0.7 alpha release offshoot" on for size. I particularly like the latter.

computer products characterized by
(i) an overall rectangular shape with four evenly-rounded corners,
(ii) a flat clear surface covering the front of the device that is without any ornamentation,
(iii) a rectangular delineation under the clear surface, equidistant to all edges,
(iv) a thin rim surrounding the front surface,
(v) a backside with rounded corners and edges bent toward to the top, and
(vi) a thin form factor

Which of these is without utilitarian benefit?

i. No apparently utilitarian value. If the corners were not rounded, it would work the same way. Or if there were different radii at the different corners, it would work the same.

ii. Lack of ornamentation is not utilitarian. Of course ornamentation, isn't utilitarian, either, but lack thereof has no specific useful value.

iii. Having the delineation equidistant from all edges has no utilitarian value. Look at the iPhone, for example

iv. Having a thin rim is of no value. The device would work just as well without the thin rim

v. Having the backside wrap and bend toward the front has no value. A multi-piece device (such as the iPhone 4 vs the iPhone 3GS) would be equally useful.

So, even your own silly argument fails.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

you are so WRONG!!!!! guess again.
Samsung products are a huge rip-off of Apples designs.
Scamdroid is a direct rip-off of iOS' design. Hemroid is also a ripoff of java.
Oracle will be putting the slap down on crookle soon enough too. Kiss your "free FTW" mantra goodbye. It was never free, since it was stolen.

Hey guy. How are you? Tell me how Android is a clone of iOS.

Also tell me when Android was stolen from Oracle.

And yes Samsung rips of Apple. Fact. But what does that have to do with Android?

It really amazes me how frequently people like you who don't have the least understanding of the issues insist on posting, anyway.

First, there's a little matter of trade dress. Then there's the matter of design patents. Then there's the matter of other patents. Since judges around the world have been blocking Samsung from selling their phone, the people familiar with the law are disagreeing with you.

And, for the thousandth time, it is not simply a matter of a rectangle shape. Apple isn't going after every rectangle shaped tablet - just those that are near exact copies of the iPad. So close, in fact, that a Samsung attorney couldn't tell the difference from 10 feet away.

Try making a can of soda in a cylindrical shape with an indented bottom. No problem - and no one will bother you. Now, make it red with silver lettering in a swirl and the words "Coca Coda" on the side. Watch how fast you get yourself sued.

The trade dress patents weren't upheld.

Have you seen a tab and an iPad? Not as much alike as you think.

And your Coca Coda thing makes no sense. It would if Samsung had a pear with a bite out of it on the back of their devices.

In the Netherlands. Unfortunately for your argument, the Netherlands isn't the whole world. Germany specifically banned the import of Samsung's product on design patent issues. And it looks like the US judge may do the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz

Have you seen a tab and an iPad? Not as much alike as you think.

Obviously the judge and Samsung's lawyer disagree with you.

Since the judge is the one who will make the decision, your opinion isn't worth much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz

And your Coca Coda thing makes no sense. It would if Samsung had a pear with a bite out of it on the back of their devices.

So you think that a company can only one one identifying mark? You really ARE confused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz

Also why is Apple targeting the Xoom?

Because it violates Apple's patents. Or do you think that a company can only choose one aspect of their intellectual property to defend?

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

Completely agree and well said. Some people are prepared to say anything to justify stealing now. A generation has grown up with the ideas that everything should be free: free music, free movies, free books where they can get them. And free software. So the idea is that Samsung should be able to copy Apple in a slavish way, so that such devices will eventually undercut Apple's prices. And no logic will be allowed to get in the way of this undermining of IP, copyright, etc etc.

It's really amazing the depths the paid Android shills will go to to deny reality.

You think its amazing? Why?

After all, they are shills. They come into forums with THE EXACT AGENDA to say Android is good, which is denying reality. And not only are they dirty, lowdown stinking shills, they are PAID shills! For Android! From Google!

How could they possibly NOT deny reality? Their entire existence here is just one, bug, fat lie! They are evil Google paid shills who deny objective reality!

Not amazing at all that the paid Android shills will go to any length, will stoop to any depth, will mire and muck with the filthiest lowest most disease ridden down and dirty flea ridden dogs to deny objective reality.

After all, they are shills. They come into forums with THE EXACT AGENDA to say Android is good, which is denying reality. And not only are they dirty, lowdown stinking shills, they are PAID shills! For Android! From Google!

How could they possibly NOT deny reality? Their entire existence here is just one, bug, fat lie! They are evil Google paid shills who deny objective reality!

Not amazing at all that the paid Android shills will go to any length, will stoop to any depth, will mire and muck with the filthiest lowest most disease ridden down and dirty flea ridden dogs to deny objective reality.

They are Google. They are Evil.

That's the first accurate statement you've made in over 650 posts.

Congratulations.

"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"Gatorguy 5/31/13

After all, they are shills. They come into forums with THE EXACT AGENDA to say Android is good, which is denying reality. And not only are they dirty, lowdown stinking shills, they are PAID shills! For Android! From Google!

How could they possibly NOT deny reality? Their entire existence here is just one, bug, fat lie! They are evil Google paid shills who deny objective reality!

Not amazing at all that the paid Android shills will go to any length, will stoop to any depth, will mire and muck with the filthiest lowest most disease ridden down and dirty flea ridden dogs to deny objective reality.

They are Google. They are Evil.

Google does not pay me. Does Apple pay you?

Also evil seems to have a different meaning in Apple fan land than reality.

Also I've never seen anyone say Android is good. Being technology Android is incapable of being good or evil. Unless you mean good as in a quality sense in which case I'm allowed to hold that opinion.

And please tell me how I'm evil. I'd love to know your criteria on such a distinction.

Must be easy to ignore arguments when you so easily dehumanize those who disagree.